Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
The appellant did not acquire a new residential property within the specified time period, failing the mandatory condition for deduction u/s 54. The CIT(A)-NFAC incorrectly invoked the "one year before the transfer" limb, concluding that the assessee is ineligible for deduction. However, the relevant date for computing the limitation u/s 54 in all three eventualities is the payment of consideration and possession of the new property. Judicial precedents support this interpretation. The assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 54.
The appellant did not acquire a new residential property within the specified time period, failing the mandatory condition for deduction u/s 54. The CIT(A)-NFAC incorrectly invoked the "one year before the transfer" limb, concluding that the assessee is ineligible for deduction. However, the relevant date for computing the limitation u/s 54 in all three eventualities is the payment of consideration and possession of the new property. Judicial precedents support this interpretation. The assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 54.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
